Safety

Interpretation: When one goes to war for a JUST cause not a soul in the world can say: "You have no business there!" And thus does not invoke ridicule and insult from other nations that are potential allies and trade countries. If you go to war with a country just because you can and your reasons are motivated by greed the world will ridicule you and thus it hurts foreign relations.

WWI - We looked like heroes (We tries to start the League of Nations but failed, we obviously cared about how the world saw us)

WWII - We looked again like heroes (We got to make the UN)

Vietnam - Reason for going was not just. (Worrying about a domino effect of communism during the cold war is pretty stupid)

Desert Storm - Could go both ways but the Kuwaiti people are pretty glad we helped them even though we helped Saddam in every prior middle-east conflict.

Afghanistan - Could go both ways, we either wanted to throw out the Taliban and stop terrorism or we wanted our pipeline to go through to the Caspian Sea.

Iraq - Unjust - No WMD, little to no terrorist connections (we have more terrorist connections in the USA) and we have lost all respect in the world due to it.

Sorry for the long response...

Afghanistan is pretty staunchly on our side -- we were attacked by Al Qaida, and Al Qaida's base of operations and primary sponsor was the Taliban, so we attacked the Taliban with UN approval and NATO support...now the rebuilding is happening under the direction of the UN with NATO troops on the ground.

So, that one (at least) was fine. And Vietnam (from what I gather from the history books) was internationally...well, "supported" is the wrong word, but "accepted" is probably right. It's internally that Vietnam really collapsed.

Your right, I would say Afgahn was very justified. Thanks! I was looking at the pipeline issue those oil companies have been trying to push there for years.